Craig Latta has been developing similar stuff for a while with Spoon and
other projects:

 "... I’m working on my Context <http://netjam.org/context> project,
a distributed, modular, minimalist computer programming system. It’s a
distributed object system with a module system (“Naiad
<http://netjam.org/context/naiad>“) and a minimal kernel (“Spoon”). "

https://thiscontext.com/

Best,
Karl


On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 9:56 AM Trygve Reenskaug <trygver at ifi.uio.no> wrote:

> Just an idea while a car is waiting to take me on a vacation.
>
> Imagine:
>
>    1. You have a computer with many independently running images.
>    2. A super fast facility pass messages between the images,
>    3. Selected services in the release image are move out and deployed as
>    server objects in another image.
>    4. Every image appears as a server offering RESTful interfaces to
>    other images.
>    5. Selected packages in any repository can be downloaded, compiled,
>    instantiated, and deployed in an image as server objects.
>    6. The different images can even run in different computers and use
>    different VMs.
>    7. There are now two dimensions to the reuse of functionality: a)
>    download and compile a package. b In some image, install a package and
>    deploy it as a server object.
>    8. And presto: The original image is now small and manageable while
>    the whole system can grow without increasing the complexity of the release
>    image.
>
> In haste. This is just an idea. It's full of holes and need a lot of work
> done to it before it can be usable.. It's a disruptive idea, so please give
> it some consideration This is before you shoot it down
> --Trygve
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2020-08-14 22:54, karl ramberg wrote:
>
> Well said, Vanessa :-)
>
> The complexity comes from people using Squeak and wanting to improve it in
> many directions.
> And managing code , graphics , user interface , faster virtual machine,
> networking, security etc. are hard problems which add complexity.
> And also the added accidental complexity on top of that.
>
> It seems systems only are simple and elegant until people start using them.
> One can see that as a good or bad thing.
>
> Solution to the complexity problem will probably take a few generations to
> solve...
>
> Best,
> Karl
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 9:42 PM Vanessa Freudenberg <vanessa at codefrau.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:31 AM Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel at hpi.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Trygve,
>>>
>>> I apologize for any misunderstandings here. I am not an English native
>>> speaker. It was not my intent do accuse you of lying.
>>>
>>> However, there is a difference between a bug report and an
>>> unsubstantiated rant. I did read your entire post "A Sad Day" as the
>>> latter. Whose mistake that was, I cannot tell now. Neutral, objective bug
>>> reports would read different, I suppose.
>>>
>>
>> It was neither a bug report nor an unsubstantiated rant. It was a
>> criticism of the complexity of all current Smalltalks. The few examples of
>> unexpected complexity in Squeak that Trygve chose to mention are not the
>> actual issue. No need to feel personally attacked.
>>
>> Having worked with a beautifully tiny system like Smalltalk-78, or even
>> early versions of Squeak, the complexity in modern Squeak is staggering.
>>
>> Smalltalk used to be a system that can be fully understood by a single
>> person - truly a personal computing system. That is no longer the case.
>>
>> All the functionality we added over the years comes at the price of
>> complexity (not to mention speed). It makes the system hard to understand.
>> It makes it hard to see the design principles. We have not found a way to
>> eliminate, or at least hide, any of the complexity we introduced.
>>
>> I don't think there is a "solution" for this within the current system.
>> We have accepted the complexity, and now we have to live with it. And we
>> have to accept that that alienates people who are looking for simplicity
>> and elegance.
>>
>> I am sad to see Trygve leave, but I do understand. He didn't even owe us
>> an explanation. Thank you, Trygve!
>>
>> All the best,
>> Vanessa
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> *The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate  to achieve
> a goal. *
> Trygve Reenskaug      mailto: trygver at ifi.uio.no <%20trygver at ifi.uio.no>
> Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
> N-0378 Oslo             http://fullOO.info
> Norway                     Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20200815/2ae03205/attachment-0001.html>